Today, after the Chancellor confirmed that Britain will
become the first G8 country to reach the 43-year-old 0.7% target for
international aid as a share of national income, it feels like one of
those moments to step back from the hammering and see the shape of the
arc.
I admit: I didn’t get into global campaigning to achieve the 0.7
target. But I quickly realised it was one necessary step along the road
towards a goal that really is worth fighting for: an end to extreme
poverty. And I also confess it has taken longer than I thought it would.
From the first tentative promises to “begin to reverse the decline”
in the aid budget made by New Labour in 1997, to the strong leadership
of Blair and Brown in 2005 to get other countries behind bold aid
targets and a package of other measures, and the remarkable commitment
of David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg since 2010 which has
taken this issue out of party politics… it’s been a long road. But
today, we can look back and see just how far we’ve travelled.
The arguments remain, of course. There are those who say 0.7 is unnecessary, arbitrary and unaffordable. But as ONE estimated last year,
by reaching 0.7, British taxpayers will put 15.9 million children in
school, vaccinate 80 million children against life-threatening diseases,
provide safe drinking water for 17 million people and help 77 million
get basic financial services, like bank accounts and credit, enabling
them to work their way out of poverty for good.
And is 0.7 per cent an arbitrary target? Only in the sense that 70mph
is an arbitrary speed limit on the motorway. We can argue about the
detail, but the point is that it’s about right.
As for affordability: it’s 7 pence in every ten pounds of national
income. As a proportion of government spending, it is dwarfed by almost
everything else. A person earning £30,000 a year contributes about £67 a
year to aid, and around £6,595 to everything else. Even in tough times,
this is small change that makes a very big difference – and when told
the facts about the size of the aid budget, six out of ten people say it
is about right or not big enough.
Looking ahead, there are challenges. As the aid budget is pegged to
the size of national income, each time the nation’s wealth is revised
downwards, aid goes down too. In today’s announcement, £130m was cut
from the proposed increase in aid. The Department for International
Development can probably just about absorb a hit like that, but it’s a
reminder that while the British economy continues to suffer, the world’s
poorest people share the burden. And to provide real certainty now
about future aid commitments, the right thing to do would be to enshrine
the 0.7% target in law, as all three major parties have promised to do
in this parliament. The coming Queen’s Speech would be the right time
for the Coalition Government to make good on that promise.
Finally, the UK must use this moral authority and political muscle for all it’s worth as they host the G8 this June.
The Prime Minister has a great vision for what he can achieve with his
G8 presidency. With the necessary political drive, he could help unleash
a transparency revolution, so that ordinary citizens have the
information they need to hold their governments and others to account,
turning resources into results in the fight against extreme poverty. And
with other leaders, he can make critical commitments on agriculture and
nutrition, putting political weight and financial support behind
African-led country plans.
With these two steps in 2013, that vision of an end to
extreme poverty will be more achievable than ever. And today will be
remembered as a memorable milestone on that historic journey.
source:ONE
No comments:
Post a Comment